JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals involve common question of law, though factual aspects may be somewhat different. To appreciate the sole grounds pressed in service by the appellant – Insurance Company, the following brief facts may be sufficient. 2. All appeals arise out of a common judgment and award of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surendranagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) dated 04.03.2005 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petitions No.289/1997, 290/1997, 291/1997, 292/1997, 294/1997, 301/1997, 302/1997 and 811/1997. On 11.03.1997, a Truck bearing registration No.GJ-13-T-5862 driven by respondent No.3 - original opponent No.2 owned by respondent No.2 – original opponent No.1 and insured by opponent No.3 – National Insurance Company Limited in the group of claim petitions, met with an accident. There were several persons – claimants sitting in the Truck bearing registration No.GJ-13-T-5862 who received serious injuries. This accident gave rise to eight claim petitions. Four were fatal cases pursued by the heirs of the deceased passengers and four were injury cases, where claim petitions were field by the injured themselves. 3. Heard Mr.Maulik Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company and Ms.Amrita Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – original claimants. 4. Mr.Maulik Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company has submitted that the atleast seventeen persons were travelling in the goods vehicle as passengers as owners of the goods was carrying cumin seeds in the Truck and 18 to 20 person cannot travel as owners of goods in the mini truck having gross weight of 6900 kilograms and the vehicle was used for carriage of unauthorized passenger is in violation of terms of policy. He has also submitted that as per Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the gross weight of vehicle does not exceed 7500 kilograms is classified as a light motor vehicle and as per Rule 122 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the total number of persons who can be carried in a light motor vehicle cannot exceed three. He has submitted that in the present case there were seventeen persons travelling the vehicle and the vehicle was used for carriage of passengers whose risk is not covered under the policy. He has submitted that in the present case there were seventeen persons travelling the vehicle and the vehicle was used for carriage of passengers whose risk is not covered under the policy. He has submitted that the vehicle was used for carriage of passengers and the deceased were travelling as unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle whose risk is not covered under the policy. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 1/5th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and since the deceased survived by parents, wife and two children, the Tribunal ought not to have deviated from the standard deduction of 1/3rd. He has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively as conventional amount. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not found the gratuitous passengers and if they are considered to be gratuitous passengers, then, the risk is not covered under Section 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as far as the Tribunal found gratuitous passenger then risk is not statutorily covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. While referring to the judgment of this Court passed in First Appeal No.2121 of 2008 dated 18.11.2013, he has submitted that pay and recovery order cannot be passed. He has referred to the cross-examination of Ratilal – eye witness and submitted that 18 to 20 passengers were sitting in the back side of the truck. He has submitted that Article 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act covers risk of the owner of the goods and not owners of the goods. He has submitted that if the Tribunal has not discussed any evidence and decided that they all are owners of the goods. He has also submitted that if the claimant or deceased is not a party whose risk is not covered under Section 147 Motor Vehicles Act neither the Tribunal nor this Court can pass an order of pay and recovery. He has submitted that the power of pay and recovery available to the Tribunal or this Court under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but only in the case where the statutory risk is covered under the policy and there is breach of condition of policy either by the driver or the owner and ordered of pay and recovery could have been passed. He has submitted that as far as the present case is concerned, the statute does not cover the risk of any passenger travelling in the goods vehicle then the question of pay and recovery would not arise and all the claimants have claimed to be the owners of the goods, but Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act only covers the risk of the single person of the goods. He has further submitted that there is admission on the part of the injured claimant in the cross-examination that the passengers were travelling in the back side of the truck sitting on the goods, but not produced the evidence showing that they were owners of the goods. He has prayed to allow the appeals. 4.1 Mr.Maulik Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions. 1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gulzarali Mehmadkhan and others in First Appeal No.2684 of 2004 and allied matters dated 17.08.2013 rendered by this Court. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lilaben w/o. Decd. Bhikhabhai Premjibhai Kathiriya and others in First Appeal No.2121 of 2008 dated 18.11.2013 rendered by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 3. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Savitri Devi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 554 . 4. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and others, (2008) 1 SCC 423 5. Per contra, while referring to the FIR and the panchnama, Ms.Amrita Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – claimants has submitted that only ten person were travelling in the goods carriage along with the goods and they all had having agricultural lands and they were growing sesame and cumin on the lands, the evidence of which has been produced on record. She has submitted that the persons who travelling in the goods vehicle are not gratuitous passengers, but they are actual owners of the goods and, therefore, pay and recovery is not required to be done and the Insurance Company may be held liable. While referring to the panchnama (page no.97), she has submitted that 25 bags of cumin, 75 jute bags of cumin and sesame found, while some of them was damaged and was found lying on the ground and in all around 100 bags of cumin and sesame were found. In support of her submission, she has referred and relied upon the following facts. In support of her submission, she has referred and relied upon the following facts. F.A.No.26/2007 Legal heirs of Hansrajbhai Makanbhai: *Agricultural lands (in his name ad father) - page nos.137 to 143 *Authorised dealer of submersible pump – page no.135 *Business of fertilizer – page no.145 to 147 F.A.No.27/2007 Legal heirs of Hussainbhai Adambhai : *Agricultural lands (in his name and father) page nos. 159 to 165 F.A.No.28/2007 Legal heirs of Rafik Abrahambhai : *Agricultural lands – page no. 175 F.A.No.29/2007 Legal heirs of Ashokbhai Bhagwanbhai : *Agricultural lansd (in his name and father) page no. 189 to 191 F.A.No.30/2007 Ratilal Muljibhai : *Agricultural lands – page no. 215 *RC Book of Tractor – page No. 197 *Electric connection on agricultural lands – page nos.209 – 213 F.A.No.32/2007 Harshadbhai @ Bhikhabhai Parshurambhai : *Agricultural lands (in the name of father written as Farshuram Daluram) page nos.239 to 241 F.A. No.33/2007 Mansukhbhai Abhrambhai : *Agricultural lands – page nos.259 to 267 5.1 Ms.Amrita Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – claimants has relied upon the following decisions. 1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa and others, 2005 ACJ 578 . 2. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Allpeer and another, 2006 ACJ 1099 . 3. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lakhuben Punabhai Vaghari and others, 2006 (12) G.H.J. 177 . 4. Anu Bhanvara Vs. IFFCO Tokio Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2019 SC 3934 . 5. Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796 . 6. United India Insurance Company Vs. K. M. Poonam, (2015) 15 SCC 297 . 6. In the case of Cholleti Bharatamma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paras-4 and 8 as under:- 4. The said provision underwent an amendment in the year 1994 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which reads as under: “147. Requirement of polices and limits of liability. K. M. Poonam, (2015) 15 SCC 297 . 6. In the case of Cholleti Bharatamma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paras-4 and 8 as under:- 4. The said provision underwent an amendment in the year 1994 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which reads as under: “147. Requirement of polices and limits of liability. - (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy with - (a) * * * * (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in subsection (2) - (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) * * * * (emphasis supplied) 8. The Act does not contemplate that a goods carriage shall carry a large number of passengers with small percentage of goods as considerably the insurance policy covers the death or injuries either of the owner of the goods or his authorised representative. 7. In the case of Pushpa and others (supra), the High Court of Allahabad has observed in paras-11 and 13 as under:- 11. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the use of the expression “owner of the goods or his authorised representative” in singular asserting that since the expression owner and representative have been so used, it is apparent that the liability had to be in respect of a single owner or representative and not beyond that. 13. We are clearly of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel as noted hereinabove is totally misconceived. It cannot be lost sight of that as provided under the General Clauses Act singular includes plural. That being so the expression owner or the expression representative though used in singular had to be taken to include owners or representatives as the case may be. 8. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considered the record and proceedings of the case and the decisions cited at the bar. 8. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considered the record and proceedings of the case and the decisions cited at the bar. It clearly transpires from the panchnama of the scene of accident at Exhibit 25 that the goods narrated by the complainant and the witnesses are found at the place of occurrence and the Insurance Company has not examined the driver of the vehicle and, therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence led by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the case of the original claimants cannot be thrown away merely because they are sitting in the goods vehicle, but, since they are owners of the goods and they are travelling in the goods vehicle from Surendranagar to Unjha for selling of their goods respectively in better place. Therefore, considering the contents of the FIR and the panchnama, it appears that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. After evaluating the evidence, it appears that the Tribunal has rightly held liable to the appellant for compensation. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that the claimants have not preferred any appeal/s for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Therefore, I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and findings arrived at by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award. 9. In view of the above, the present appeals are dismissed. The appellant – Insurance Company shall deposit the awarded amount before the Tribunal with running interest as awarded by the Tribunal and after depositing the amount in question, an appropriate order of disbursement shall be passed in accordance with paragraph no.27 of the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal in the interest of justice and equity. Record and proceedings of the case be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.